Croping in Camera

[steve817]

I hear so many people talk about getting it right when you take the shot. While I understand where they are coming from, I'm not quite sure what to do when you don't know what size you will be printing in the end, say 8x10 vs 5x7. How do you handle this?

[SkipD]

Often one needs to choose the format of the print after the shot has been made. There's no unbreakable rule that a print has to conform to ANY standard size, either.

When you know that a photo will be used for a standard size (8x10 inches, for example) then you really need to know how to visualize that height-to-width ratio in your camera so that you can fit the image to the print format. Experience helps, of course.

[caryj]

When I first started out, I would always take the shot the way I wanted it to be printed. Then when I wanted to crop it to a certain size, I would end up losing important parts to the crop. Even when I would try to visualize an 8x10, say a tight head shot for example, I would crop in camera the way I wanted it, then in post processing would end up having to cut off more and not liking it.

Now, I visualize what I think I want, then back off just a little. I haven't had any problems with cropping lately using this approach. And with digital, you are not wasting any film......so I always take a couple of different shots cropping a little differently in camera, just in case.

[Mark_Cohran]

I shoot with enough space to so that I can crop to 8x10 or 5x7. I've learned this the hard way.

Mark

[steve817]

That's what I have been doing, but somehow I was made to feel that i was doing something wrong.

[gjl711]

I shoot with enough space to so that I can crop to 8x10 or 5x7. I've learned this the hard way.

Mark
Yup, this was one of the first big differences I noticed when I switched from my Nikon to the Canon and learned the hard way the difference between a 3:2 and 4:3 sensor.

[Moppie]

Yup, this was one of the first big differences I noticed when I switched from my Nikon to the Canon and learned the hard way the difference between a 3:2 and 4:3 sensor.

Im also having trouble adjusting from the 4:3 to 3:2 ratio, and Iv yet to get anything printed from the 30D.
Do current EF lenses allow a 4:3 image sensor?
If so I would love to see one in an SLR, it would be one step closer to CDS's ideal 1:1 sensor.

[SkipD]

Do current EF lenses allow a 4:3 image sensor?
Lenses don't "allow" for different sensor sizes. It's the camera body and how it's designed that is involved.

I seriously doubt that any camera manufacturer is going to ever produce a DSLR using the nominal 35mm camera size (and basically using lenses originally designed for 35mm cameras) with anything but a 3:2 format sensor. The only reason for that would be to make images default to the format of computer displays, and there is no economic drive to do that since you can easily crop images from the conventional DSLR's to the 4:3 format.

[Moppie]

Lenses don't "allow" for different sensor sizes. It's the camera body and how it's designed that is involved.

I'll rephrase it, do they project a perfect circle, or is there some cropping of the top and bottom of the image in the lens design? (you could always make a smaller sensor, but that would sort of defey part of the reason to go 4:3 and 1:1, your are maxamising potential imaging area inside the camera body).
I notice some wide angle hoods for example are shapped so they cover a 3:2 area.



I seriously doubt that any camera manufacturer is going to ever produce a DSLR................................. you can easily crop images from the conventional DSLR's to the 4:3 format.

Unfortunatly I agree, so much about modern DSLR's seems to be stuck the 35mm film age I can't see something as simple as the sensor shape changing anytime soon either.

[Lightstream]

I'll rephrase it, do they project a perfect circle, or is there some cropping of the top and bottom of the image in the lens design? (you could always make a smaller sensor, but that would sort of defey part of the reason to go 4:3 and 1:1, your are maxamising potential imaging area inside the camera body).
I notice some wide angle hoods for example are shapped so they cover a 3:2 area.




Unfortunatly I agree, so much about modern DSLR's seems to be stuck the 35mm film age I can't see something as simple as the sensor shape changing anytime soon either.

There was an interview with Canon's technical guru, Chuck Westfall, about the square vs rectangle format. He did acknowledge that what we are living with is largely a film SLR legacy - the format has always been that way, and that it would actually be possible to do square format with some exceptions.

I would point out that a simple lens, like say a 50 f/1.8 (to choose the simplest) is quite capable of delivering a square image. However Chuck pointed out that other lenses have internal flare-blocking diaphragms, some visible, some not, that are configured for 3:2, and you bring up a good point about the hoods as well. For example, my 28/1.8 has a visible flare cut blocking part of the frame. For 3:2 this is no problem, for 1:1 square it is.

Interestingly however, I took the caps off my 28/1.8, and used the lens to focus an image of my table lamp's bulb onto my desk. This'll give you a good idea of what the actual image will look like on the sensor. It projects a perfectly round image circle despite the flare cutout... so it WOULD work for square format.

[SkipD]

I'll rephrase it, do they project a perfect circle, or is there some cropping of the top and bottom of the image in the lens design? (you could always make a smaller sensor, but that would sort of defey part of the reason to go 4:3 and 1:1, your are maxamising potential imaging area inside the camera body).
I notice some wide angle hoods for example are shapped so they cover a 3:2 area. Now I understand your thinking. I have not done any experimentation, but I suspect that most lenses actually project a nearly circular image.

There's another problem, though, if you want to use lenses designed for a 35mm film camera with a taller sensor. Let's assume that you want to get the 4:3 format by using the same 36mm length but increasing the height to 27mm instead of the standard 24mm. This would require a longer mirror to project that image toward the viewfinder (which would also have to be larger). The longer mirror would probably not have sufficient room with the already defined distance between the EF lens mount and the "film" plane. Thus, the 27x36mm format would not be a practical solution.

What you would be left with for options is a sensor like the APS-C size (or possibly the larger sensor of the 1D) but increased in height to give the 4:3 format. This would again increase mirror lengths, and could easily be a problem for the APS-C cameras - the EF-S lenses may not be able to function with a longer mirror in a modified APS-C format body.

The bottom line is that people like prints in 4x6, 5x7, and similar "longer" formats than the 4:3 format. Many people opt to print "panoramic" style. Except for computer display "advantages", it doesn't seem to me that there would really be a market for an expensive DSLR with a 4:3 format. Maybe a bottom-of-the-line DSLR would sell with the 4:3 format being marketed as being perfect for computer display of images, but if I were in the business of building and selling DSLR's that look like 35mm cameras, I don't think I would mess with the current format.

If I were to build a medium format digital camera (25 to 30 megapixel or better) for professionals, then I would definitly do some marketing research to find the "best" format (width to height ratio) for the folks who would buy my camera.

[gjl711]

... Let's assume that you want to get the 4:3 format by using the same 36mm length but increasing the height to 27mm instead of the standard 24mm. This would require a longer mirror to project that image toward the viewfinder (which would also have to be larger). ...
This might actually be a good reason why its not done today. Doin' the math real quick and assuming that the mirror is at a 45, it would have to be 34 mm long to capture a 24mm window. But if the window increased to 27mm the mirror would grow to 38mm.
The bottom line is that people like prints in 4x6, 5x7, and similar "longer" formats than the 4:3 format. Many people opt to print "panoramic" style. Except for computer display "advantages", it doesn't seem to me that there would really be a market for an expensive DSLR with a 4:3 format.
Here is where everything falls apart. Paper size and sensor size have little to do with each other. Though a 4x6 conforms to the 3:2 ratio, as does a 8x12, none of the other ones do. A 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 are all closer to the 4:3 than a 3:2 as are all of the standard ISO paper sizes from A0 through A8 and standard letter as well. Legal is closer to the 3:2 so maybe that’s the answer. The 3:2 sensor was invented by lawyers.:lol:

....if I were in the business of building and selling DSLR's that look like 35mm cameras, I don't think I would mess with the current format.
This is the exact kind of thinking that Microsoft is living with today. Support the old at the expense of the new. So why limit yourself to what your grand-daddy did. There is nothing magic about the current 35mm format. It is just what some guy settled on a hundred years ago and because all the well established companies are trying to build a product so that even 20 or 30 year old lenses can still be used we are limited to it today.
I think it will take an upstart, the Apple of the camera world, to come on the scene and toss out the old rules and start fresh. I for one would love to see a square sensor. Imagine never having to worry about whether to take a pic in landscape or portrait, or contorting into all kinds of funny poses trying to frame a pic vertically, or resorting to putting on giant bicycle sized handgrips just so you can spin the camera 90 degrees easily.
If I were to build a medium format digital camera (25 to 30 megapixel or better) for professionals, then I would definitly do some marketing research to find the "best" format (width to height ratio) for the folks who would buy my camera.
There are only three things I care about with my equipment. Image quality is #1, and performance #2. Everything else is #3. Today DSLRs have my #1 and #2 locked up but when the P/S guys solve the sensor noise problem, provide a better focusing method and, add interchangeable lenses and you have a P/S camera with more capability than today’s DSLRS I am so there.

[Moppie]

There are only three things I care about with my equipment. Image quality is #1, and performance #2. Everything else is #3. Today DSLRs have my #1 and #2 locked up but when the P/S guys solve the sensor noise problem, provide a better focusing method and, add interchangeable lenses and you have a P/S camera with more capability than today’s DSLRS I am so there.


I'll be there with you, everytime I pick up my 30D I get this feeling Iv stepped backwards at the same Iv stepped forwards.
There is something slightly wrong with advanced Digital technology stuck in a 40 year old form factor.
But then there are worse examples, cars use a form factor thats over a thousand years old (4 wheels surporting a frame that people ride on), and the humble chair is a form factor thats been around since the first ape sat on a rock.

[Lightstream]

Did I stumble upon a meeting of the Committee For the Re-Inventing of the Wheel? ;)

BTW, isn't 6x6" format pretty much....square? Well of course converting that to digital isn't very cheap.

Chuck Westfall's column ended with a note that it's possible to re-engineer a camera for square format, just that there hasn't been substantial market interest.

[Moppie]

just that there hasn't been substantial market interest.


I think they need to include POTN in the market surveys then :cool:

And nothing wrong with re-inventing the wheel, if it makes it function better.

[Lightstream]

:mrgreen:

He should know a few things about what the users want since he's one of the most well known points of contact with the company. Probably wouldn't hurt if you made your opinion known - that's the way to get them to hear us :)

[tzalman]

There is something slightly wrong with advanced Digital technology stuck in a 40 year old form factor.


The first Leica using a 24x36mm exposure on 35mm film was produced in 1913. A bit more than 40 years ago.

[Moppie]

The first Leica using a 24x36mm exposure on 35mm film was produced in 1913. A bit more than 40 years ago.

Yes, but how long as the SLR been around?? (I thought it was the 60s that they became mass produced and used by even the average consumer?) :)

[tzalman]

The Contax S was released in 1949 and was really the first modern SLR with an instant-return mirror (in early SLRs you had to crank down the mirror after every shot, although on some it was together with the film advance) and a prism viewfinder. For my first SLR in the early '60s (a Miranda, a cheapie but surprisingly good) I could afford only preset lenses in which you had to close the aperture diaphragm manually.

In terms of popularity, in the Korean War the photogs used primarily Leicas and Contaxs but discovered that Nikon and Canon were making great lenses for them. This lead to Japanese being able to penetrate the American market after the war and Pentax lead the way in developing and marketing a consumer SLR.

[Halliday]

I crop in camera and then shoot a little wide for printing space.